UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

Thank you, I recalled researching some similar sightings in Canada and was unable to rule out the CL-84 "Dynavert" V/STOL...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CL-84

Looks like the same timeframe.

Good suggestion, but I had to rule out all aircraft because of the instant acceleration ... as stated ... a conservative 25 km in 1 second ... from a dead stop.

j.r.

 

[Jono74]

Did it reflect on the water at all? or was the viewing angle wrong for that? And did u manage to see if it lit up things on the path it travelled - eg, ground/forest below, or hills/mountains, or was it too high up for that? when did u lose sight of it? did it just fizzle out, or reduce to a point source and disappear, or go behind something?
Also, i dont really know how to articulate this, but u know when something explodes in darkness, and instead of exploding evenly(?) a 'flare' type thing shoots out and burns out, and when viewed/angled just right, it can look quite diff if there is nothing to give it its true perspective, could it have possibly been something like that? no offence, Im just suggesting things.
ps - the shabby way you have been treated so far in this thread is abundantly clear. Im just about afraid to post, and thats no way for any forum to be. Especially "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way". The standard of critical thought displayed here is amazing, and to be aspired to, imo, but common decency is absent.

 

[Rramjet]

Then you better think about your choice of words. If you state I made a lie (i.e an intentional effort to deceive), then you are calling me a liar. Either you think I am a liar or you are using it to make it sound like I am lying to those reading this thread. This is not the first time you have done this in our discussions. I suggest you stop using the kind of language that implies this. People can make an honest mistake. That does not mean they are lying or are trying to deceive.

Oh but you are definitely disingenuous – and I have called you so on numerous occasions (and I do so again in reference to your post I am currently quoting). You have also made false statements – and I have called you out on those as well. I have however never called you a liar. To make out that I have – even by implication - is disingenuous AstroP. You are not averse to the ad hominem attack either – the following statement from you encapsulates all of the above:

…you give me this subjective nonsense about what you think and then say you found it some psychology books

What I have claimed is not subjective nonsense, it is not an opinion of mine, it is a fact - and I did not say that I “found it in some psychology books”.

I have claimed that the perceptual and cognitive factors that cause misperceptions are well documented (and I pointed you toward some sources for example) and I also claimed that those factors can be utilised to assess reliability in UFO reports.

I specifically provided the example of a reliability assessment of the estimated size of an object seen in a clear blue sky – where perceptual factors indicate that we should not take such an estimate to be reliable. I have also pointed out that this does not mean the estimate is incorrect, just that we as analysts, given the perceptual factors involved, cannot count on it to be so.

I also pointed out that in the Rogue River case there were other factors involved that spoke to the reliability of the size estimates, including the motion of the object, the available landscape reference points and the multiple eyewitnesses.

Moreover, when I stated “we can quantify the perceptual and cognitive factors that lead to perceptual error and make an accounting of those factors when assessing UFO reports" you will note that the subject of the sentence was the factors involved – in other words it is a different way of stating that the factors involved are well documented – they have been quantified in the literature – as has their application to specific contexts.- - and we can therefore use that knowledge to assess perceptual reliability in UFO reports.

You may attempt to hand-wave away those factors and points of argument - but your mere statement – your mere unfounded assertion - that they are not valid or are somehow contradictory, etc does not make your disingenuous and unfounded assertions valid.

 

[ufology]

Did it reflect on the water at all? or was the viewing angle wrong for that? And did u manage to see if it lit up things on the path it travelled - eg, ground/forest below, or hills/mountains, or was it too high up for that? when did u lose sight of it? did it just fizzle out, or reduce to a point source and disappear, or go behind something?
Also, i dont really know how to articulate this, but u know when something explodes in darkness, and instead of exploding evenly(?) a 'flare' type thing shoots out and burns out, and when viewed/angled just right, it can look quite diff if there is nothing to give it its true perspective, could it have possibly been something like that? no offence, Im just suggesting things.
ps - the shabby way you have been treated so far in this thread is abundantly clear. Im just about afraid to post, and thats no way for any forum to be. Especially "a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way". The standard of critical thought displayed here is amazing, and to be aspired to, imo, but common decency is absent.

Good questions. I should probably post all these details on my site, but for now, I'll try my best to answer the individual questions.

Q. Did it reflect on the water at all?
A. We were indoors looking through the picture window and the bottom sill obscured visibility of the water. The image I posted is just a close representation for illustrative purposes. If you were outside overlooking the lake, I imagine it would have looked very much like that.

Q. And did u manage to see if it lit up things on the path it travelled - eg, ground/forest below,
A. Yes, as it came close to the tree tops for a landing you could see it lighting them up as it landed in behind them. When it landed the light just went out.

Q. When something explodes in darkness, and instead of exploding evenly(?) a 'flare' type thing shoots out and burns out, and when viewed/angled just right, it can look quite diff if there is nothing to give it its true perspective, could it have possibly been something like that? no offence, Im just suggesting things.
A. First of all, no offence taken. You are asking really valid questions and of all the suggested causes, your suggestion demonstrates one of the best items to consider. There was also the suggestion of a vertical takeoff and landing craft and an RC model, also good suggestions.

The problem is that it took off, stopped for a moment, instantly accelerated into these perfect consecutive figure eights really fast ( about 200 meters wide ), stopped instantly, and landed again. I observed this twice. Then the last time it took off it zoomed north instantly and was gone.

BTW: I can't tell you how much your kind comments mean to me. It is so refreshing ( I'm really not kidding ). Thank you.

j.r.

 

[Stray Cat]

First: Your math is wrong: 25km = 15.5342798 miles.

Wow that's the first thing you've been right about since you got here.
Yes, it seemed wrong to me last night too, but it had been a long day.
I'd actually calculated 21miles to 33km... That's the second time I've been wrong on the internet this century.

So it was less than 2 miles away when it was doing it's acrobatics.

But now we also find out you were looking at it through glass.
I already know what the most likely answer to this is going to be, but I'll suggest it anyway: A reflection of something behind you that was a lot closer and smaller.

 

[Pixel42]

Now that we're finally getting some real details about the sighting (and I still don't know why it took so long) I'm tending towards the theory that several different observations are wrongly being assumed to all have been of the same thing.

I think it's entirely possible that ufology saw something land at the distance he thought the first sighting was, but at least one of the later sightings (specifically the one(s) who performed the physically impossible acrobatics and zoomed off) was something else entirely - something much smaller and closer, like a firefly or similar. Or even, as Stray Cat suggests, a reflection in the window.

ETA: Of course another possibility is that he dozed off at some point during the night and dreamt at least one of the later sightings.

 

[Jono74]

no worries
Ok... I read the bit about lighting the forest top, but what I meant but didnt say, was when the thing 'shot off' - did u manage to see if it lit anything on its path, or too quick? were u standing at the window by this time, for a better view? (Mind u, if i was 16 and alone in a house with a young lady, i would neither notice or care if there was a full on mass invasion of probe-wielding LGM)
Im just trying to break things into bits here, in hope that something kind of fits a part at least. Taken altogether, as u describe it, Im at a loss to come up with anything decent.
What about the old ball lightning chestut? That sounds plausible to me, its just a pity no one has yet proposed a plausible mechanism for ball lightning, or reproduced it in a lab. Have u checked with stray cat as to the whereabouts of his gay rodeo blimp that night? That thing really gets around..
What about the explosion/bright strobe flash again - when something really bright flashes/strobes, and yr head/eyes are moving, it can give that retinal burn/streak afterimage, that could possibly appear as something streaking across the sky.
I believe you did see what u say, and that u have described it to the best of yr ability, and that you knew while you were seeing it that it was clearly unexplainable, and you are at present double triple checking, and just ticking boxes. Its just that life goes on and nothng more can really be gleaned or gained or learned. Just a really cool thing to see.
If it had to have a natural explanation, which would be the one you could put it closest to?

 

[Jono74]

Wow that's the first thing you've been right about since you got here.
Yes, it seemed wrong to me last night too, but it had been a long day.
I'd actually calculated 21miles to 33km... That's the second time I've been wrong on the internet this century.

So it was less than 2 miles away when it was doing it's acrobatics.

But now we also find out you were looking at it through glass.
I already know what the most likely answer to this is going to be, but I'll suggest it anyway: A reflection of something behind you that was a lot closer and smaller.

Oooooo.... thats a good one - reflection! ps - still got yr song on car cd. pps - long day too...? tell me bout it - my first day in new job today. jeebers...

 

[John Albert]

What about the old ball lightning chestut? That sounds plausible to me, its just a pity no one has yet proposed a plausible mechanism for ball lightning, or reproduced it in a lab.

Actually, physicists have produced plasmas in the lab that kinda sorta might possibly resemble the kind of objects that have been reported as "ball lightning," but there is as yet no plausible explanation for how such plasmoids might form or persist in a natural, non-controlled setting, or behave in the manner that some "ball lightning" reports allege.

From a skeptical point of view, "ball lightning" is one of those anecdotal claims that hasn't been proven conclusively. In other words, it remains an unverified urban myth.

 

[Jono74]

Yeah, I know - thats why I called it the old chestnut. oops - no i didnt - looks like i called it the old "chestut".

 

[Akhenaten]

You may attempt to hand-wave away those factors and points of argument - but your mere statement – your mere unfounded assertion - that they are not valid or are somehow contradictory, etc does not make your disingenuous and unfounded assertions valid.

The only thing that might have rendered the desperation in this post more obvious would have been some ALLCAPS and some big red text.

 

[ufology]

Now that we're finally getting some real details about the sighting (and I still don't know why it took so long) I'm tending towards the theory that several different observations are wrongly being assumed to all have been of the same thing.

I think it's entirely possible that ufology saw something land at the distance he thought the first sighting was, but at least one of the later sightings (specifically the one(s) who performed the physically impossible acrobatics and zoomed off) was something else entirely - something much smaller and closer, like a firefly or similar. Or even, as Stray Cat suggests, a reflection in the window.

ETA: Of course another possibility is that he dozed off at some point during the night and dreamt at least one of the later sightings.

By dawn the surrounding landscape was becoming visible and I could see it rise out of the forest on the other side of the lake. It lit up the trees around it including those in front of it which its light shone through before it rose above them, shining light on their tops as it cleared them. There is no way this thing was a firefly.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Clearly some bigfeets letting off fireworks.

 

[Agatha]

Unbelievable! Every time you post about this sighting, you come up with another vital piece of information. Now we find the sighting was through a window. I am not convinced you are posting in good faith here, ufology. Very disappointing.

 

[Aepervius]

Scepticism is a funny thing. I can hear the same laugher when the first caveman described a fire (by a lightning) to another caveman or same laughter in the middle-ages when Leonardo da Vinci did show his pictures of futuristic ideas etc. etc.

Humour is a weapon. I admit. It´s not who laughs first but last. We must wait. I still hope that everybody laughs in the end.

The way it is going on, I'll long be dead before anybody can pretend to be the one laughing last.

heck, if trully civilization are island of life starting, growing and ending in isolation, then the last laughing on the subject of alien abduction and visiting earth will not even be aware of it.

 

[Correa Neto]

Have you ever read King of the America's descriptions of his alleged sighting?

When he writes about it, its really not rare that small (and quite often significant) tidbits of information are added (or changed). Usually these tidbits make the sighting more unusual.

In both cases, we have recollections from events which happend a long time ago. In both cases, the memories are claimed to be accurate. In both cases, information is provided in pills ("need-to-know basis?).

In both cases, it all boils down to "I have seen the light(s)". Its a special pledge for a special knowledge, a special experience which separates them from the rest of humanity- they are "knowers". Just like the guys who know bigfoots are real because they've seen it, or know Jesus is real because they somehow have been in contact with him, or know there's another reality because they had a mystical experience.

Its really hard for anyone with a skeptical mindset, anyone using critical thinking to say anything other than "cool story bro, but I have no actual clue on what you saw, I don't even know if you actually saw something but one thing I can tell you- aliens are not at the top of my list of plausible explanations".

 

[Akhenaten]

Good questions. I should probably post all these details on my site, but for now, I'll try my best to answer the individual questions.

Are we supposed to pretend that you've had a site devoted to ufology since 1989 and yet it's only just now that it's occurred to you to include details of your own Amazing UFO Story on it?

Are we to further pretend that your now 37-year-old memories of this 'event' are an accurate reconstruction?

Q. Did it reflect on the water at all?
A. We were indoors looking through the picture window and the
bottom sill obscured visibility of the water.

You saw all this through a freaking window???

You've got to be kidding.

The image I posted is just a close representation for illustrative purposes. If you were outside overlooking the lake, I imagine it would have looked very much like that.

But of course it never occurred to you to actually go outside?

I can't wait to hear your 37-years-later explanation of how you eliminated reflections on the window as a possible explanation for this.

Q. And did u manage to see if it lit up things on the path it travelled - eg, ground/forest below,
A. Yes, as it came close to the tree tops for a landing you could see it lighting them up as it landed in behind them. When it landed the light just went out.

You saw this from 25 kilometres away?

Balderdash.

Q. When something explodes in darkness, and instead of exploding evenly(?) a 'flare' type thing shoots out and burns out, and when viewed/angled just right, it can look quite diff if there is nothing to give it its true perspective, could it have possibly been something like that? no offence, Im just suggesting things.

A. First of all, no offence taken. You are asking really valid questions and of all the suggested causes, your suggestion demonstrates one of the best items to consider.

Well why aren't you considering it?

There was also the suggestion of a vertical takeoff and landing craft and an RC model, also good suggestions.

A suggestion? What does that mean exactly?

A radio-controlled model lighting up details of the surrounding trees such that they were visible from 25 kilometres away is a ridiculous suggestion. Why am I unsurprised that you find it reasonable.

Making up this story as you go isn't working out very well for you, is it?

The problem is that it took off, stopped for a moment, instantly accelerated into these perfect consecutive figure eights really fast ( about 200 meters wide ), stopped instantly, and landed again. I observed this twice. Then the last time it took off it zoomed north instantly and was gone.

Problem for what? It's just a story.

BTW: I can't tell you how much your kind comments mean to me. It is so refreshing ( I'm really not kidding ). Thank you.

j.r.

Beats answering the real questions, I'll bet.

 

[Astrophotographer]

What I have claimed is not subjective nonsense, it is not an opinion of mine, it is a fact - and I did not say that I “found it in some psychology books”.

FACTS are something that can not be denied and they require proof. Provide direct quotes from your sources of how to employ your methodology. You claim you have a methodology to determine the reliablity of a UFO report and the witnesses. However, I have yet to see you demonstrate that you can do this using real data.
Then there is the margin for error, which you found so important in Kecksburg. What is your potential for error in making a mistake in your analysis of a reports reliability? Surely, a scientist would be able to determine how accurate such a methodology is. If you can't do this, then it is subjective and not objective. It is not a fact, it is your opinion. It allows for personal bias to affect the analysis.

I have claimed that the perceptual and cognitive factors that cause misperceptions are well documented (and I pointed you toward some sources for example) and I also claimed that those factors can be utilised to assess reliability in UFO reports.

You pointed towards sources but have you really read them? Listing a bunch of books you googled on the web is not the same thing as researching it and providing relevant quotes. Feel free to present your actual source material (direct quotes and not just a listing of books) you claim that supports what you are stating. Otherwise, you appear to be just making it up as you go along.

Once you have done that, you can present case examples of actual UFO events where you can demonstrate if a report is reliable or not. However, it can not be one of the cases you have already presented. Let's try some raw reports and then let you assess the reliability of the reporting witnesses and the report. If your methodology is as good as you claim, you should have no problem identifying the reports that are misperceptions and the ones that are real "UFOs" (aliens/objects unknown to science/whatever you want to call them).

 

[RoboTimbo]

By dawn the surrounding landscape was becoming visible and I could see it rise out of the forest on the other side of the lake. It lit up the trees around it including those in front of it which its light shone through before it rose above them, shining light on their tops as it cleared them. There is no way this thing was a firefly.

j.r.

Yes, now you're seeing the problem with anecdotes being unfalsifiable and totally useless to critical thinking. No matter what anyone says, you'll recall another bit of information that would rule out whatever they say. Amazinging, the only one you'll never be able to rule out is pseudoaliens.

While anecdotes are useless for critical thinking, they are the gold standard for pseudoscientists, so you got that going for you.

 

[EHocking]

Good questions. I should probably post all these details on my site, but for now, I'll try my best to answer the individual questions...

Yes, it might help you get your story straight.

But since these memories are over 37 years old, it is not surprising that you have them muddled between your posts here and the posting on your website.

To Whit.

You should pay more attention: I actually said, "I could even tell you the record that was playing while we were sitting there ... Led Zeppelin, Houses Of The Holy." It was released in 1973. You're thinking of the song Houses Of The Holy from physical Grafiti.
j.r..

You should check the facts before you lay into someone about paying attention.

Of course, this is a classic example of a person's memory being infallible, but insisting that they have perfect recall.

The memory from your website:

http://www.ufopages.com/Reference/BD/Murphy-02a.htm
The three of us were sitting together on the couch in the dark looking out the picture window and listening to Led Zeppelin Two.

So what was it? The 1969 Zep II or the 1973 Houses of the Holy?

Another:

...The object rose about 300 feet before accellerating, and it went north and gained altitude as it went,...

And the website version

...It rose vertically to about 200 meters and stopped instantly.

In the website version, the object rose twice as high in the sky as your JREF posted version.

Such inaccuracy...

Last one;

Third: It was also much closer than 25Km when it first appeared, directly across the lake ( about 3 Km ). Here is a graphical representation that is very similar:
http://ufopages.com/Reference/Graphics/Orb-01a.png

Which doesn't look much like the description of the the sighting as per your website recollections.

At midnight a glowing blue-white orb sprung up from behind the mountain range across the lake and bounced down the side of the mountain in three big arcs...

So which version of your account is correct?

The forum posting version of your (teenage) memory recounted 37 years later, or your website version of your (teenage) memory recounted 37 years later?